background preloader

Structuralism

Structuralism
In sociology, anthropology and linguistics, structuralism is the theory that elements of human culture must be understood in terms of their relationship to a larger, overarching system or structure. It works to uncover the structures that underlie all the things that humans do, think, perceive, and feel. Alternatively, as summarized by philosopher Simon Blackburn, structuralism is "the belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract culture".[1] In the 1970s, structuralism was criticised for its rigidity and ahistoricism. Overview[edit] The term "structuralism" is a belated term that describes a particular philosophical/literary movement or moment. The origins of structuralism connect with the work of Ferdinand de Saussure on linguistics, along with the linguistics of the Prague and Moscow schools. See also[edit] Related:  philosophy tree

Post-structuralism Post-structuralism is a label formulated by American academics to denote the heterogeneous works of a series of mid-20th-century French and continental philosophers and critical theorists who came to international prominence in the 1960s and '70s.[1][2][3] A major theme of post-structuralism is instability in the human sciences, due to the complexity of humans themselves and the impossibility of fully escaping structures in order that we might study them. Post-structuralism is a response to structuralism. Structuralism is an intellectual movement developed in Europe from the early to mid-20th century. Theory[edit] General practices[edit] The author's intended meaning is secondary to the meaning that the reader perceives. Destabilized meaning[edit] In the post-structuralist approach to textual analysis, the reader replaces the author as the primary subject of inquiry. In his essay "Signification and Sense," Emmanuel Levinas remarked on this new field of semantic inquiry: Deconstruction[edit]

Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine Metacognition Metacognition is defined as "cognition about cognition", or "knowing about knowing". It comes from the root word "meta", meaning beyond.[1] It can take many forms; it includes knowledge about when and how to use particular strategies for learning or for problem solving.[1] There are generally two components of metacognition: knowledge about cognition, and regulation of cognition.[2] Metamemory, defined as knowing about memory and mnemonic strategies, is an especially important form of metacognition.[3] Differences in metacognitive processing across cultures have not been widely studied, but could provide better outcomes in cross-cultural learning between teachers and students.[4] Some evolutionary psychologists hypothesize that metacognition is used as a survival tool, which would make metacognition the same across cultures.[4] Writings on metacognition can be traced back at least as far as De Anima and the Parva Naturalia of the Greek philosopher Aristotle.[5] Definitions[edit] [edit]

Google Actualités Emergentism In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind, and as it contrasts (or not) with reductionism. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is in some sense more than the "sum" of the properties of the system's parts. An emergent property is said to be dependent on some more basic properties (and their relationships and configuration), so that it can have no separate existence. However, a degree of independence is also asserted of emergent properties, so that they are not identical to, or reducible to, or predictable from, or deducible from their bases. The different ways in which the independence requirement can be satisfied lead to variant types of emergence. Forms of emergentism[edit] Other varieties see mind or consciousness as specifically and anomalously requiring emergentist explanation, and therefore constitute a family of positions in the philosophy of mind. Relationship to vitalism[edit] C. C.

Western Philosophy Supervenience The upper levels on this chart can be considered to supervene on the lower levels. In philosophy, supervenience is an ontological relation that is used to describe cases where (roughly speaking) the lower-level properties of a system determine its higher level properties. Some philosophers hold that the world is structured in to a kind of hierarchy of properties, where the higher level properties supervene on the lower level properties. According to this type of view, social properties supervene on psychological properties, psychological properties supervene on biological properties, biological properties supervene on chemical properties, etc. That is, the chemical properties of the world determine a distribution of biological properties, those biological properties determine a distribution of psychological properties, and so forth. It is useful to know both when supervenience does and does not obtain. History[edit] Definitions[edit] Varieties of supervenience[edit] Value properties[edit]

Fractal Figure 1a. The Mandelbrot set illustrates self-similarity. As the image is enlarged, the same pattern re-appears so that it is virtually impossible to determine the scale being examined. Figure 1b. Figure 1c. Figure 1d. Fractals are distinguished from regular geometric figures by their fractal dimensional scaling. As mathematical equations, fractals are usually nowhere differentiable.[2][5][8] An infinite fractal curve can be conceived of as winding through space differently from an ordinary line, still being a 1-dimensional line yet having a fractal dimension indicating it also resembles a surface.[7]:48[2]:15 There is some disagreement amongst authorities about how the concept of a fractal should be formally defined. Introduction[edit] The word "fractal" often has different connotations for laypeople than mathematicians, where the layperson is more likely to be familiar with fractal art than a mathematical conception. History[edit] Figure 2. Figure 3. uniform mass center triangle fractal

Atheism Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11] The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.[12] With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment. Arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to social and historical approaches. Definitions and distinctions Range Concepts

Fideism Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism."[1] Theologians and philosophers have responded in various ways to the place of faith and reason in determining the truth of metaphysical ideas, morality, and religious beliefs. Overview[edit] Alvin Plantinga defines "fideism" as "the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth." History[edit] Theories of truth[edit] The doctrine of fideism is consistent with some, and radically contrary to other theories of truth: Some[which?] Tertullian – "I believe because it is absurd"[edit] Blaise Pascal and fideism[edit] Hamann and fideism[edit] Kierkegaard[edit]

Related: